An argument can be made this is a skill that improves active dodging. (vs simply running away)
Only if you think tooltip wording trumps in-game mechanics. As I've previously said, Vault's mechanics are unintuitive and don't match the tooltip. That's a definite problem, but the skill is apparently working as intended. Since you continue to try to use it the way you think it should work instead of the way it actually does work, it's no wonder you're frustrated.
They decided to make the arrows slow. If they didn't want me to actively dodge them then they should have made them faster instead of making the animations not match what's happening.
If arrows moved fast enough that you couldn't sidestep them on reaction, they'd also move fast enough to near-instantly hit already-moving targets. They'd also move too fast to be countered by Smokescreen or similar abilities. Blizzard wants arrows to be avoidable. They don't want them to be sidestepped on reaction once they're already in the air. They have stated the reasons they want it this way, and your suggestion doesn't result in the same game mechanics.
I said the lack of polish comes from the animations not matching what's going on. For a real time game, that's unpolished.
No, it isn't. It's a necessary evil which is present in nearly every real-time RPG.
Wouldn't it be simpler to do away with this gibberish and have all attacks work on a hitbox system?
Yes, it would be - at least in the case of a game like Diablo. In fact, it would be
much simpler, which is why I find your contention that it is the result of a lack of polish so absurd. It would also result in completely different underlying mechanics.
One last question: do you think the current system of animations meaning nothing is superior to hitboxes and would actually prefer it to be used in other games? I can understand people accepting it but defending it... I don't get that.
And yes, I was bored enough to respond to this.
That statement is complete hyperbole. Animations and hitboxes both carry substantial meaning, and are used for resolving many different attacks. In any case, what I think is that the underlying gameplay mechanics are superior to what those gameplay mechanics would be if the game used strict hitbox detection for all attack resolution - at least without making substantial changes to the combat engine. Strict hitboxes can and do work well for a third-person ARPG designed to controlled on a gamepad, but not for an isometric point-and-click ARPG designed to be challenging.
And yes, I do prefer it to be used in other games when appropriate, and what's more it
is used in other games when appropriate. It's standard for most RPGs, real-time or not. In an ideal world animations would perfectly match underlying game mechanics, but we don't live in an ideal world, and exact matching simply isn't feasible in all cases. Good underlying game mechanics are more important to me than perfectly matching animations and hitbox detection, and I've played enough RPGs to be used to it. Clearly you don't feel the same way.
To reiterate:
1) Backstepping to attempt to avoid every melee attack requires little strategy, and most players do not find it enjoyable to spend an entire gameplay session doing it. A few melee attacks with long wind-up times are meant to be avoided in this manner, but they're the exception, not the rule. For the game to be challenging, the designers have to assume players will play in the optimal manner. When the optimal manner isn't fun, that's a problem. Playing a melee class would be horrible if this were allowed and the game were balanced around the assumption that you would be doing it. On top of that, it would make it even easier than it already is for ranged classes to kite melee enemies.
2) Sidestepping arrows requires little strategy, and is fairly easy for ranged classes while being impossible for melee classes. In all honestly, arrows and other attacks like them are the only regular attacks which ranged players can't easily avoid. Assuming no mistakes, the only other abilities which threaten them are anti-kiting abilities. (Invisible snakes, phasebeast teleports, various elite affixes, etc.) It seems clear that Blizzard doesn't want ranged players ignoring defenses and stacking all offense; it isn't fair to melee classes, and this is one of the mechanics in place to discourage it. On top of that, the idea of watching an arrow flying towards you from relatively close range and sidestepping it at the last moment is ludicrous.
3) Personal preference, but I like mechanics which treat players and NPCs as closely as possible. Players benefit from these mechanics just like enemies do. Do you have any idea how frustrating it is to play a melee chasing down a running enemy, get close enough to attack, then whiff the attack because the enemy is out of range before the attack animation finishes? Some games work this way, and it is
not fun. Would you find it enjoyable if enemies continually sidestepped your arrows at the last second?
If I could think of a way to implement animations which retained the current mechanics while simultaneously perfectly matching them, I'd be critical of Blizzard for the current implementation. I can't think of a way, I haven't seen anyone suggest a way, and it's a problem inherent to the genre. That's why I'm willing to defend it. There are numerous problems with the game which I won't defend, but that's another topic.
